Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey. J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court, District Judge Level, Raipur (C.G.) in ARB MJC No.17/2022, whereby the learned Commercial Court set aside the arbitral award dated 09.04.2022 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby the claim of the claimant/appellant was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Bharat Aluminum Company Limited ( BALCO) and R. K. Transport Company (RKTC) entered into a contract dated 01.04.2002 for a period of one year in terms whereof, RKTC had to mine and transport 2,00,000 Metric Tonnes of Alumina Bauxite from Manpat, Sarguja to BALCO's plant in Korba. During the course of performance of the contract, the parties by mutual agreement had amended some of the terms of the contract. The BALCO, from time to time, had offered monetary incentive and bonus scheme for the benefit of the RKTC, which were duly accepted and received by RKTC. BALCO vide its letter dated 25/03/2003 set out the bauxite mining and transportation monthly schedule for the year 2003-04, clarifying that any additional quantity more than the monthly schedule should be supplied only if BALCO gives written clearance, and bonus for supply of additional quantity above monthly schedule will be paid only upon making of written request. In the course of performance of contract, the RKTC requested for a reduction/change in quality norms of the bauxite supply The BALCO agreed to modify specification of bauxite to 47% alumina and 2.90 of silica as the limit. Further, bauxite specification and penalty clause were amended. On 31/03/2005, after discussions between the parties the period of contract was extended by a further period of three months up to 30/06/2005 on original contract's terms and conditions. In the course of time, dispute arose between the parties and the contract was not extended by BALCO. RKTC claimed an amount of Rs 2774.57 lacs allegedly due to it as balance payment under the subject contract as against its legitimate claim of Rs.149.47 lacs only. Since the dispute could not be resolved amicably, in exercise of its power under clause 33, same was referred by BALCO for arbitration. However, RKTC objected to the same and filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. In the meantime, Ld. Sole Arbitrator was appointed by BALCO, who was agreeable to RKTC. RKTC filed its statement of claim on 08/12/2012 whereafter, the BALCO filed its statement of defense and counter-claim on 10/04/2013 claiming Rs.5,15,26,866/- on account of delay on the part of RKTC in carrying out its obligations under the contract, resulting in loss to BALCO. On 20/06/2015, before commencement of trial, the BALCO filed an application before the Ld. Arbitrator under Section 16 of the A&C Act contending that the claim nos.2, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19. 21 & 29 of RKTC were beyond the scope of the contract and therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. Arbitrator. The Ld. Arbitrator vide order dated 19/09/2015 held that the said application would be decided at the time of final argument. However, same remained undecided. In the arbitral proceedings, the documents/vouchers relied upon by the RKTC with respect to its claim for reimbursement of additional expenses incurred for transportation of Bauxite were never produced before the Ld. Arbitrator on the pretext of the documents/vouchers being very bulky, and only certain ledger entries from April 2002 to March 2004 were filed along with the statement of claim by the RKTC. The said ledger entries were denied by BALCO before the Ld. Arbitrator in its statement of admission and denial. In the course of arbitral proceedings, the BALCO had noted certain discrepancy in the documents/vouchers produced by RKTC for inspection Thereupon, the